Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sourabh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2024
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu, Amar Nath Kesharwani
1 WP No.22800/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
W.P. No.22800 OF 2023
BETWEEN:-
SOURABH SHARMA, S/O SUNIL KUMAR
SHARMA, AGED 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION
UNEMPLOYED, R/O 25, PAL ROAD,
NARSINGHGARH, DISTRICT RAJGARH (M.P.)
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SAHKAR NAGAR, E-8,
TRILANGA, BHOPAL (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DHARMENDRA SONI- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
CULTURE, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.).
2. COMMISSIONER, DIRECTORATE OF
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BEHIND RED CROSS HOSPITAL, BHOPAL -16.
(M.P.).
3. SHASHKIYA SANGEET EVAM LALITKALA
MAHAVIDYALAY, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
NARSINGHGARH, RAJGARH, DISTRICT
RAJGARH (M.P.).
4. PRAKASH KUMAR MISHRA, WORKING AS
GUEST ASSISTANT LECTURER (SINGING) IN
GOVT. MUSIC COLLEGE, NARSINGHGARH,
2 WP No.22800/2023
RAJGARH (M.P.) R/O SHIVRAJPUR, SATNA
(M.P.).
5. DEEPIKA CHOURASIYA, WORKING AS GUEST
ASSISTANT LECTURER (SINGING) IN GOVT.
MUSIC COLLEGE, NARSINGHGARH, RAJGARH
(M.P.), R/O NARSINGHGARH, RAJGARH (M.P.).
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI G.P. SINGH - GOVT. ADVOCATE AND SHRI RISHAB SINGH -
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.4 & 5)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 15/04/2024
Pronounced on : 01/05/2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Sheel Nagu pronounced
the following :
ORDER
This petition is filed under Art. 226 of Constitution by an aspirant for
appointment to the post of Guest Faculty in Government Music Colleges
Narsinghgarh, prays for following relief:
7.1 Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of
advertisement dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure-P/1) issued by
Respondent No.2 to the extent of it appointing Guest
Faculty Lecturer in the department of Music (Singing) in the
respondent No.3 college.
7.2 Consequently a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued
for directing respondent No.2 to issue fresh advertisement
containing the reference and consideration for the EWS
candidates in pursuance of notification dated 02.07.2019.
7.3 Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit.
2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission
so also final disposal.
3. The principal contentions raised by petitioner are as follows:-
(i) The impugned advertisement dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure-P/1) does
not extend the benefit of 10% reservation for Economically Weaker
Section (EWS).
(ii) Petitioner despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria has not been
selected and appointed.
(iii) The private respondent Nos.4 & 5 have been appointed as Guest
Faculty in Narsinghgarh College to the detriment of petitioner,
despite respondents having no experience of teaching for period of
two years which is one of the essential eligibility criteria as per the
selection norms vide letter dated 19.09.2017.
4. State in its two returns filed on 13.10.2023 and 12.03.2024 have primarily
objected to the petition on the following grounds:-
(i) The qualification of M.A. in Music possessed by petitioner was during
two years academic course from July, 2015 to June, 2017 during which
period, petitioner claims to have gained experience while working as
Music Teacher for the period from 15.06.2013 to 30.10.2016 and
10.10.2016 to 28.04.2017 ( vide Annexure-P/7).
(ii) In this background, State objects that either experience certificate of
working as Music Teacher obtained during two years MA Music Course
is fabricated or the degree of MA in Music was obtained without
attending classes.
(iii) State also objects that there were several complaints against petitioner
and his father of raising rucous while protesting against non-
appointment of petitioner pursuant to impugned advertisement and also
during the last recruitment.
5. State has not responded to the ground of non-provision of EWS quota in
the recruitment in question. However, the palpable reason appears to be that the
EWS quota which was introduced in the Constitution by insertion of Article
16(6) w.e.f. 14.01.2019 was under challenge before Apex Court in bunch of
petitions. The said challenge was ultimately repealed by the Apex Court by its
majority judgment dated 07.11.2022. [See: Janhit Abhiyan Vs. Union of India
(EWS Reservation), 2023 (5) SCC 1]. Thus, State ought to have made available
the benefit of 10% reservation for EWS in the impugned advertisement issued
much later.
5.1 The only reason which this Court can foresee for not having introduced
10% EWS reservation is that there were few vacancies advertised. It is true that
the State is obliged to provide EWS reservation in all advertisements for filling
up posts in public service but the said ground alone is of no avail to the
petitioner since this petition fails for other reasons as enumerated below.
5.2 The other ground is that the private respondents do not have the
requisite experience of two years as specified in Annexure-P/2 does not
appear to be correct. Return filed by the respondent Nos.4 & 5 clearly reveals
that both the private respondents possess the minimum experience as well as
educational qualification necessary for Guest Faculty in Music.
5.3 More so, the ground taken by State of certain period of experience
gained by petitioner to be overlapping with that of the period in which
petitioner pursued his M.A. Music three year course, does not hold any water.
The reason being that the petitioner had gained experience working as Guest
Faculty in Music right from 08.11.2017 to 30.07.2022 with intermittent
breaks but more or less petitioner completed the minimum period of two
years of experience required in Recruitment Rules. Thus the contention of
State that merely because the experience gained between July,2015 to June,
2017 cannot be taken into account is heard to be rejected on the ground that
other periods of experience gained after June, 2017 satisfies the minimum
experience criteria of two years teaching experience.
5.4 Another reason why this Court is not inclined to allow this petition is
the limited scope of interference available to this Court in matter of discretion
with Selecting Agency to indulge in comparative assessment between two or
more competing candidates. In the absence of any mala fide against any of
the members of the Selecting Agency, discretion available to the Selecting
Body is immune from judicial review. The Selecting Agency is empowered to
select the best among the competing candidates and while doing so, if the
person selected and satisfies the minimum requisite educational qualifications
and that of experience, then the power of judicial review restrains the Court
from entering into the adequacy and sufficiency of the reason to select one
over the other.
5.5 The Selecting Agency found petitioner to be not as meritorious as the
private respondents. This discretion available to the Selecting Agency is
neither vitiated with mala fide nor has been shown to be violative of any
constitutional or statutory provision.
5.6 More so, it is informed by learned counsel for State that tenure for
which the recruitment took place is over.
5.7 Be that as it may, another reason which dissuades this Court from
passing of an order in favour of petitioner is the fact of failure of petitioner to
challenge the appointments of private respondents and since any order passed
in favour of the petitioner would prejudice the private respondents, this Court
refrains from doing so.
6. In view of above, no case for interference is made out and the petition
stands dismissed.
(SHEEL NAGU) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
Biswal
Date: 2024.05.01 16:22:55 +05'30'
